I think you could have sold me on that, except that, actors and everything aside, the whole "pushed over the edge" thing might have been their point. This was what The Joker believed- that our morality, our conscience, was shallow and skin deep. There's a limit to how much anyone can take - the joker just judged Harvey Dent correctly. You see, insanity is like gravity - all it takes is a little push.
As to the killing the family thing, I think he may not have wanted to give Gordon the pleasure of dying by his hand. He felt as though he owed something to Harvey, and, if I was a maniac with no family and half my face burned off, I don't think I'd want to allow him to feel he'd related his debts.
But that's just my opinion. Though yours seems more thought out and based on fact, I think I'll stick with this one. Otherwise your opinion would be my opinion, and this opinion wouldn't exist.

The 3rd movie was awful in my opinion. So many stupid things like why didn't he just climb the rope that was tied to his waist and attached to a rock at the top of the prison hole. How did he get back into Gotham when he's on the other side of the planet with no money, no car, no nothing and he has no idea where he is? Plus, Gotham is closed except for one entrance into the city. I can accept that he gets back, but Nolan just wants us to imagine the incredible journey it would take to get back into Gotham?

Bane and some guys use motorbikes and guns, in front of everyone, and somehow steal almost all of Bruce Wayne's money, even though there are 100's of witnesses to this armed assault. This trade would NEVER be allowed to go through. It would be voided immediately. It's such an affront to our intelligence to think you can just walk into the stock market with guns and someone's finger print and wipe out all his money with everyone watching.

How many times in this movie was there a surprise attack at the last second before a bad guy was about to kill a good guy? It happened about 5 times on my count. That's so lame.

The dialogue was terrible. The fact that Batman ends up with Catwoman is terrible. Even Bane's whole purpose didn't make any sense - although Bane as a bad guy was pretty cool, his death was just terrible. Another good guy saving someone at the last second when Catwoman burst through the door and uses a perfect missile to kill Bane just at the last second. Of course, Catwoman is an expert with the Batcycle the second she hops on board. Of course.

There are so many things wrong with this movie...I wanted to love it. I really did. I loved Dark Knight...it's my favorite action movie since Terminator 2. But this movie was such a "dumbed-down", typical action film that I left the movie totally let down.

It's called the batpod. I know that's annoying, when you've put out all those excellent arguments, but that's the internet for you. Other than that, well done. All of your arguments are completely valid. And I know the well done may sound patronising, but I swear to god it's not.

If there must be multiple Bat-threads, I'd rather discussion be confined to this thread for Nolan stuff, and the other, broader Batman Franchise thread covering the older films, the television shows and the comics. When the BvS thread picks up again, let's try to move any past film derails to either of these two threads. This is not a rule or a demand, just a request.

I watched TDKR for the first time in a long time. It occurred to me that the other reason John Blake is a composite character, besides covering for the reveal at the end, is to allow Batman fans to more easily project themselves into that fantasy of being Batman that you have when you're a kid.

If he were Grayson, or Todd, or Drake, it not only would ruin the "surprise" but it would rob you of that feeling by assigning the role to a canon character who would be predestined to some degree to step up to the plate.

Simply, the very end of TDKR (and by extension, the entire character and relative blank slate of John Blake) is about being a Batman fan.

Not being snarky in the slightest but, what would you have preferred? Him to be outright dead? Heavy ambiguity? Just a shot of Alfred smiling? For the record, I like the reveal of him being alive....if for no other reason than to see little children's GENUINE elated reaction to it. It got such a sweet reaction everytime from all those heartbroken little guys in the theater..

I guess I'm being grunpy and cynical, and I know this has been done to death, but the whole thing smacks of studio meddling. I can't help but feel that Nolan wanted to definitively end Bruce Wayne's story ("Not everything, not yet"), but Warner Bros wanted to keep the door open just in case. The statue. "It was the Batman." Alfred weeping. The shot of Bruce in the cockpit seemingly coming to terms with his death. It all comes undone with that shot. The "and he lived happily ever after with the woman who completely fucked him over" ending just kills me.

There's no evidence that Warners pressured him into anything and as much guff as this trilogy gets for being dark and serious, I don't think Nolan ever seriously entertained the idea of sending audiences home with a dead Bruce Wayne, no matter who took his place.

Also, I think the shot of Batman in the cockpit is Bruce coming to terms with the "death" of Batman as far as he was concerned, considering his escape plan. He knows he's done and he's finally satisfied.

I don't think it's an afterthought so much as a brittle plot-point, same with the Clean Slate technology, the expository "details" of which are just vomited out by Daggett in possibly the worst line of dialogue in the film.

There is something interesting going on in the third film. If the second was all about making the audience think, I've always taken the last one as being all about making the audience feel. Its a sequence of big moments, postures and emotional beats, lacking narrative cohesion or sense even, at times. The emotional beats are each hit with a thunderclap though, all sturm und drang. I don't know whether to despise the man for his manipulation or praise him for making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I don't think it's an afterthought so much as a brittle plot-point, same with the Clean Slate technology, the expository "details" of which are just vomited out by Daggett in possibly the worst line of dialogue in the film.

I'm gonna come up to bat for this. It's always felt like a sly acknowledgment at comic book expository dialogue. Even Daggett relishes it as if he's in on the joke.

Yeah....naw, not buying that all. All of Nolan's Batfilms have a groaner or two and that's one of them. I will say that he clearly directed the actors playing gangsters in the first two to be more panto and arch than one would expect, but I don't think that explains some of the clunkers he and his brother fall prey to on occasion.

Yeah....naw, not buying that all. All of Nolan's Batfilms have a groaner or two and that's one of them. I will say that he clearly directed the actors playing gangsters in the first two to be more panto and arch than one would expect, but I don't think that explains some of the clunkers he and his brother fall prey to on occasion.

Not saying there aren't clunkers here or there, but I felt in the performance a kind of self-awareness.

I'll never fully understand the "nice coat" gag from Batman Begins and why it just had to be there at that moment.

Not saying there aren't clunkers here or there, but I felt in the performance a kind of self-awareness.

I'll never fully understand the "nice coat" gag from Batman Begins and why it just had to be there at that moment.

I feel like it was the joke that was supposed to not only diffuse the scene but signal to the audience "we're in more traditional summer movie area, the oscar worthy stuff is over don't worry" That's the one thing I truly hate about Batman Begins. They NAIL the training, the psychological motivations, the building and design of the batman and then his very first confrontation. Action sequences being incomprehensible aside, it's AMAZING storytelling.

But then with that awful fucking joke they decide to throw all that out the window and go with a more traditional tone. They prove they can do Nolan Batman and that it's fucking incredible, and then they throw it away.

I think Batman Begins has more of the studio concessions that some people conspiratorially think TDKR has. The visual and structural approach of the last two films speak to a filmmaker who is now able to bend a film series to his will.

Bad dialogue and audience pandering aside...the old man WAS Shane Rimmer. That defuses it for me a bit. Between his presence and shit like the guy seeing the Tumbler go by and looking in his drink were pretty clear indicators as to where Nolan felt this movie fell on the "grim and gritty" spectrum. The man loves his Bond homages.

Someone once asked Nolan about his approach to Batman and whether he took it too seriously, to which he responded, "I think maybe some people take ME too seriously." He makes films in a style he likes...doesn't mean he thinks he's making something akin to Ingmar Bergman..

Good point. I always take it that Nolan rides the line and people either just don't know it and don't care, or find it completely baffling and contradictory. But that's Nolan for you. The man does what he fucking wants.

Which is why I love both Batman films (and respect the third one). They don't necessarily feel like studio films nor are they listing shit for fanboys to cream over. Considering that Marvel just announced they'll be doing these for *groan* forever, my respect for Nolans trilogy grows with time.

They don't necessarily feel like studio films nor are they listing shit for fanboys to cream over.

Ehhh... I dunno. Dark Knight Rises feels like nothing but that. Plus, what could possibly be more studio film than doing the standard trilogy despite the creator clearly only having inspiration for two?

Ok, let me rephrase that...I disagree that he only had a DESIRE to make to two. He clearly wanted to close off what he started. And there ARE some inspired things in TDKR. But Nolan's only human (contrary to what some of his fans would like to believe) and I believe that TDKR was the first time in his career that he just simply attempted juggling too many balls and control of it got away from him. TDKR justifiably has a lot of criticisms lobbied at it but a director on autopilot isn't one of them. Maybe less enthused than when tackling something like The Prestige....but he's too professional for autopilot..

Ledger's death understandably bummed him out, but I don't think you can tell that from the film. If anything, just looking at the structure alone, it took balls to make something like TDKR, a film that really isn't about the costumed hero being in the costume.

Another thing I've thought about is that it's very much like a Batman comic, i.e., a story in a rolling narrative. If you've been a regular or semi-regular reader of the monthlies, you'll read arcs that can take their time and be about something other than "bad guy shows up / hero stops bad guy". That's not to say that TDKR isn't that, but betwixt that are these digressions that you don't get in your average tentpole movie. I like it for the fact that it defies those expectations, the shit that fanboys don't like. I think it's great that it takes 30-45min for him to get back in the costume, only to quickly get his ass kicked and get only get back into the costume for the finale.

There's certainly nothing fanservice-y about it as Freeman is suggesting aside from the very slight nod to "Robin" at the end and a few allusions to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (I mean outside of the obvious plot elements it skims from that book).

Also, from a technical standpoint, Nooj likes to (in many cases justifiably) rag on aspects of Nolan's action sequences. But he chose to do them himself. I'm sure he was well aware of his limitations, but where some see a director who foolishly should've employed some second unit direction to cover his own deficiencies, I saw a director who was willing to make mistakes and get out of his comfort zone to explore another facet of filmmaking. He chose to dive into the action genre and undertook the challenge wholeheartedly. Some of the results were wonky as hell but I applaud his willingness to put himself out there like that. He wanted the films to be his. 100% his. Goofy dock scenes and all. That's interesting to me even if the results aren't always ideal..

Ledger's death understandably bummed him out, but I don't think you can tell that from the film. If anything, just looking at the structure alone, it took balls to make something like TDKR, a film that really isn't about the costumed hero being in the costume.

Another thing I've thought about is that it's very much like a Batman comic, i.e., a story in a rolling narrative. If you've been a regular or semi-regular reader of the monthlies, you'll read arcs that can take their time and be about something other than "bad guy shows up / hero stops bad guy". That's not to say that TDKR isn't that, but betwixt that are these digressions that you don't get in your average tentpole movie. I like it for the fact that it defies those expectations, the shit that fanboys don't like. I think it's great that it takes 30-45min for him to get back in the costume, only to quickly get his ass kicked and get only get back into the costume for the finale.

There's certainly nothing fanservice-y about it as Freeman is suggesting aside from the very slight nod to "Robin" at the end and a few allusions to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (I mean outside of the obvious plot elements it skims from that book).

And Batman Legacy featuring the big Bane Bats rematch and Bane working with the League to destroy Gotham, and Knightfall with the back break which is awkwardly thrust into the structure of the movie making it sort of wonky, and Batman Inc. with Talia, and No Mans Land post Earthquake where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the world and the people stuck there are basically held hostage... Pulling elements from the comics to create something new and wonderful is nothing new in comic book movies, look at Spider-Man 1 and 2. But I don't see how you can look at Batman having his back broken as anything but fan service if it's going to spit in the face of logic.

Nothing about that "injury" was medically accurate but I don't think that in the movie his back is meant to be BROKEN. It's a fantasy. It's Seagal's Hard to Kill. "Hero gets grievously injured. Hero rehabilitates for the inevitable rematch." What Bane does to him in the movie is almost more psychological. He's already a physical wreck from the get go (which I think is one of the movie's biggest flaws to be honest). Besides, if they hadn't included that visual of Bane slamming Batman down on his knee then folks would've been up in arms over that as well. It's not an easy plot point to translate to film. Comics can take the time to ACTUALLY break his back and have his healing stretch over a much longer period of time. The movie didn't have that luxury..

And Batman Legacy featuring the big Bane Bats rematch and Bane working with the League to destroy Gotham, and Knightfall with the back break which is awkwardly thrust into the structure of the movie making it sort of wonky, and Batman Inc. with Talia, and No Mans Land post Earthquake where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the world and the people stuck there are basically held hostage... Pulling elements from the comics to create something new and wonderful is nothing new in comic book movies, look at Spider-Man 1 and 2. But I don't see how you can look at Batman having his back broken as anything but fan service if it's going to spit in the face of logic.

This doesn't make any sense. Actually, the fact that you're complaining about fan service at all is sort of suspect to me. Batman having his back broken isn't "awkwardly shoved into the narrative", it's part and parcel of the narrative. Scratch all of that. I'm not getting into this again because you have eyes. You saw the movie. If you didn't dig it, fine, I don't and never have cared about that, but the story the film is telling is really, really clear.

And Batman Legacy featuring the big Bane Bats rematch and Bane working with the League to destroy Gotham, and Knightfall with the back break which is awkwardly thrust into the structure of the movie making it sort of wonky, and Batman Inc. with Talia, and No Mans Land post Earthquake where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the world and the people stuck there are basically held hostage... Pulling elements from the comics to create something new and wonderful is nothing new in comic book movies, look at Spider-Man 1 and 2. But I don't see how you can look at Batman having his back broken as anything but fan service if it's going to spit in the face of logic.

But by this logic the whole damn trilogy is fan service.

Batman Begins is pulling from Year One with the corrupt cops and Not-yet Commissioner Gordon as well as the "Batman starting out" plot. Most of the pre-Batman plot of Bruce falling into the cave and travelling and training across the world is lifted directly from The Man Who Falls (Ducard also featured here). And the third act Arkham escape as well as the focus on Falcone comes straight out of The Long Holloween.

Similarly, The Dark Knight's chief inspiration is once again The Long Halloween with it's focus on Harvey Dent and his fall to becoming Two-Face. Sal Maroni featuring so prominently. The prisoner transfer scene is also inspired directly from a similar scene in the book. Batman and Joker's whole dynamic is lifted from The Killing Joke. Ledger's Joker is pretty much an amalgamation of Killing Joke Joker and the character's first appearance.

It's what Nolan does. Picks what he likes from certain stories and works them into the narrative. I really don't see how the back breaking is any different from any of these other situations he's lifted from the funny books.

Also, from a technical standpoint, Nooj likes to (in many cases justifiably) rag on aspects of Nolan's action sequences. But he chose to do them himself. I'm sure he was well aware of his limitations, but where some see a director who foolishly should've employed some second unit direction to cover his own deficiencies, I saw a director who was willing to make mistakes and get out of his comfort zone to explore another facet of filmmaking. He chose to dive into the action genre and undertook the challenge wholeheartedly. Some of the results were wonky as hell but I applaud his willingness to put himself out there like that. He wanted the films to be his. 100% his. Goofy dock scenes and all. That's interesting to me even if the results aren't always ideal..

well then, perhaps he should start starring in the films as well!

he was already having Leo do it by proxy for Inception...

Him jumping in headfirst on Batman Begins could be admirable. But to continue doing it with similarly not so stellar results? Is that admirable or just stubborn?

And I say this as someone who actually enjoys his vehicular action sequences. It's really just in crafting hand-to-hand combat where Nolan seems to stumble hard (except when it's just Bane beating up Bat... that's fun).

I think it's a bit admirable (and stubborn). But seriously...why NOT try and improve by continuing to do so on the following movies? In this age of EXTREME cookie cutter-itis with regard to big blockbusters I just find it weird to take a filmmaker to task for this. And he HAS improved. And isn't it commendable to do more work than he had to? For better or worse, those movies are TOTALLY his. I just think it's more interesting than the norm. And since he already started it in the first one it's kind of appropriate to keep doing it to maintain a high level of continuity between movies. The one scene where he seemed like he hadn't improved much and stumbled hard was that limp noodle last fight with Bane. That one was a big misstep.

This is probably the point where fingers get pointed and accusations of "Nolan FAN BOY" will start getting thrown around...despite the fact that I think the first Iron Man kicks the CRAP out of Batman Begins and I even like Iron Man 3 as much as the MIGHTY DARK KNIGHT..Edited by Fraid uh noman - 2/3/16 at 11:32pm

Effective for the fight scenes? Only if they want to make me laugh. It's not weird to take someone to task for not doing something well.

I admire Robert Rodriguez for supposedly doing everything on his movies. Doesn't help me enjoy Machete or Once Upon A Time in Mexico though. I admire Shyamalan for making attempts to have key roles in his own movies. Doesn't make his appearances any less odd or improve the film as a whole.

I also admire filmmakers who know their strengths and choose to delegate properly.

I'm talking intentions more than results...but that's kind of subjective because I find most of his fight scenes more effective than you do with just a couple exceptions. The dock fight. and the second Bane fight are lame. The rest? Have a rhythm and a feel that I enjoy. There's better ways to do these things maybe...but I liked em all the same.

And I get what you're saying about knowing your strengths and delegating properly...but how's he supposed to get better if he doesn't keep at it? One day it may click for him and he could become a crackerjack action director. But only if he continues to pursue it and find his groove. Are we saying that that's impossible and he should just stop?

I actually think his vehicular action got worse in the third movie. The SWAT van vs. Joker vs. Tumbler/BatPod sequence was a lot of fun. I was shocked at how listless all the vehicular stuff in TDKR was. The opening plane extraction and the big The Bat and Batpod vs. all the Baneblers. Even the fact that they look very convincingly photoreal (a Nolan strength) made little difference. The only thing I found entertaining in that whole sequence was the Adventures of Bumbling Commish Gordon.

But all that probably has more to do with how listless I found the movie itself as opposed to any major difference in the way the sequences were put together.